Prothon 0.1.2 is getting close to Alpha [Prothon]

[David MacQuigg]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:37:15 -0700, "Mark Hahn" <mark at prothon.org>
wrote:

>Peter Hansen wrote:
>> Mark Hahn wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Hansen" <peter at engcorp.com> wrote
>>>> Why do you think you can improve on that,
>>>> (or even be on par with it if you're writing the interpreter
>>>> from scratch)?
>>>
>> [snip reply]
>>
>> Excellent reply, Mark.  Thank you.
>
>You're no fun.  I was trolling for a rip-roaring flame-war :-)
>
>Seriously though I know those topics aren't of great interest to c.l.p. or
>people here wouldn't be using Python.  They are of interest to some small
>niche markets though and we'll take what we can get.  Thanks for asking and
>being so polite.

I for one, welcome any discussion of alternatives to Python,
particularly comparing languages like Ruby and Prothon that are
derived from Python and have the benefit of hindsight.  For those who
are annoyed, just set your filter to kill [Prothon] in the subject
line.

For those with an open mind, I highly recommend looking at both Ruby
and Prothon.  I don't see these as a practical alternative for what I
need, but as an eye-opener on how many of the problems in Python could
be solved more elegantly (or at least differently).

I don't see Python as the ultimate programming language, but it is
close enough that it is not worth the cost of switching to a perfect
language.  The outcome I would most like to see is that Python 3
adopts some of the changes we see in Prothon (and a few from Ruby).

-- Dave

*************************************************************     *
* David MacQuigg, PhD              * email:  dmq at gain.com      *  *
* IC Design Engineer               * phone:  USA 520-721-4583  *  *  *
* Analog Design Methodologies                                  *  *  *
*                                  * 9320 East Mikelyn Lane     * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C.             * Tucson, Arizona 85710        *
*************************************************************     *